U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003
blackredyellow
Posts: 5,889
U.S.: Iran halted nuclear weapons program in 2003
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
U.S. intelligence has determined that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but believes it is continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used for building a bomb, a government report said on Monday.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate released by the Bush administration also said Iran would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_1
That bold sentence is enough to attack a sovereign nation over? Apparently no proof whatsoever, just a belief that they are developing technical capabilities?
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
U.S. intelligence has determined that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but believes it is continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used for building a bomb, a government report said on Monday.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate released by the Bush administration also said Iran would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_1
That bold sentence is enough to attack a sovereign nation over? Apparently no proof whatsoever, just a belief that they are developing technical capabilities?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I know our government keeps speculating on what Iran is doing but at the sametime this issue would be put to bed if Iran would just be completely transparent about their nuclear program. That way the US government would have absolutely no way of pushing for a war/invasion of Iran.
i certainly hope that's not enough proof...again.
I think No matter how transparent, the US would still find a way for pushing a war.
Think about it, the US would just find another reason, they've done it in the past, they'll do it in the future.
What the US wants, it gets.
Well I think after Iraq it will be a bit harder for any administration to push a needless senseless war. I'm not saying that they will not try I just think it will be a lot harder for them to win over approval. If Iran was being completely transparent it would be obvious to the public that there is no threat there. The administration would have to try to cook up some half-baked reason that would not be swallow as easily as a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands. As stupid as some Americans may be we where fooled once resently so it will not be that easy to fool us again.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on... me? You? Can't be fooled by the fooler. Won't be fooled again. What George? Ha ha.
This is great news and personally makes me very happy! This gives us more breathing space, and most importantly - this report means that GW Bush will most likely not be the one to have to make a decision to use force against Iran.
Hopefully Mamoud Ackingmydinijad will be voted out of office by then, and we'll see a more reformist leader/regime emerge that is more in tune with the will of the people.
Like you I am equally pleased by this. As you stated it will postpone any decision being made about Iran and hopefully new administration will take office that will not be as childish and utter flawed as Bush's and Ahmedinajad's.
yeah. I see your point, but here is the thing,I don't think the american public was really fooled by the Iraq war build up or the reasons for it. I mean almost the entire planet knew that going into iraq was a bad idea and just...wrong. The american public is just well....apathetic. they just don't care enough about anything other than fast food and television.
The truth about iraq was never really hidden from the american public, it was the american public who chose not to look at the truth. that is very dangerous and I don't see that "american way" changing anytime soon.
A good example is israel/lebanon. Israel messed up, then america sent them huge amounts of weapons, israel killed countless number of people and americans stood by and did'nt care. after iraq one would think the american public would not allow such a thing to happen so soon right? but they did.
of course american troops were not really directly involved so it was even less for americans to worry about, but the point is americans just don't care. obvioulsy not all,but a number far greater than the people in this country who do.
I disagree. Americans care deeply, they are just mostly ignorant. Never-the-less, the "truth" about Iraq that you speak of was basically impossible to find.
Some of the brightest, non-partisan minds in this country blessed the war. It had overwhelming support in our congress among Democrats and Republicans.
The ironic thing to me is that even if the reasons to go to war were wrong, and I'll grant you that. The potential benefits of a peaceful, democratic government in Iraq will far outweigh the lives and money spent to achieve it. We are talking about peace, stability and opportunity for one of the most oppressed populations on Earth.
Maybe 200,000 people were killed, who knows. But that is to save the future of 25 million, and the ripple effect of a Democratic Iraq could save millions more.
Can you not acknowledge that?
I don't know about Non-partisan minds... but, for a politician to go against a War after September 11th (at that time) looked like political suicide. There was no certainty that we would rout the Iraqi military... and we were "Not in the business of Nation building". We we sold a bill of goods (that we pass on to our kids and their kids) based upon the glory of war and visions of Paris, 1944. No one questioned. To question... you were labled Un-Patriotic, a Terroist Sympathiser and told to go live in Iraq by, what turned out to be, some of the stupidest minds in the country.
And yeah... a peaceful Democratic Iraq "looks" like a good thing... only if they vote in people who like us. They voted in people loyal to Muqtada al Sadr... people who hate us. They voted in people who align themselves (religiously) with Iran. Under that later of sugar we call 'Democracy' is a steaming pile of shit for us to eat. and no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on shit... it's still shit.
All anyone had to do was question the reasoning and the timing. Afghanistan was half-baked and needed to be completed. There was a looming election in 2004 that the neo-conservatives wanted to win. all we had to do was step back... look at what we were getting into and come up with a worst case scenarios instead of relying only best case. Had we done that... we would have forseen the problems with the ensuing occupation.
Hail, Hail!!!
How bright could those minds really be if they thought invading,bombing,destroying and killing was the best way to bring peace,stability and opportunity to a people?
support in congress also doesn't mean much to me, all those politicians are corrupt tools.
That was my thinking. I'm no genius, but I looked at this thing and came to the logical conclusion that the only way to make Iraq a success would be to model the coalition after the 1991 Gulf War's coalition and make sure the Arab nations were onboard. We needed them to act as a go-between and buffer our alien troops to their indigenous customs, culture, religion and language.
We needed the U.N. on board to do the nation building because we are NOT in the business of nation-building.
And most of all... we needed our (European) allies onboard to toss in the additional forces required to occupy a country. Sealing off the borders, protecting the oil assets, overall security so the rebuilding effort could immediately kick in.
...
An idiot as myself can out think the brightest minds in America? If so.. then we are doomed.
Hail, Hail!!!
Bush can't wipe his own ass without permission. he's a lame duck.
and how fitting is that adjective... "LAME"?
Hail, Hail!!!
In this situation, it may lead to Iraq's split to three independent countries which can only bring more chaos to the middle east.
Remember that Al Qaida was not even present in Iraq before the war but just used the opportunity to settle there using the chaos there.
With regards to Iran, I think USA is just preparing the excuse not to attack there, not that USA can attack Iran after all these but at least history books can say USA did not try the weapons because bullying did the job.
Talk about ridiculous.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Oh.. I agree with you, 100%. What I was trying to say, that in my personal opinion, our greatest probability of of succeeding in Iraq would be to get all of those factors in line. The most important factor being, the inclusion of the Arab nations. Trainning/re-trainning of Iraqi forces could be held in neighboring countries, such as Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Also, the rebuilding would NOT be all American... it would be mostly Iraqi. Loaning Iraqi businesses the money to hire Iraqis to rebuild their own nation.
...
But, i'm not claiming they would end up being pro-American. The bottom line is that 60% of the 2003 Iraqi population is Shi'ite... the same Shi'ites that gave us Ayatollah Khomeni, Hezbollah and Muqtada al Sadr. give the people who hate us the power to choose who they want to lead them and guess who they vote for? If you said, 'Other people who hate us'... you get a gold star.
Hail, Hail!!!
oops, guess they missed the memo :rolleyes:
esp with adjraghead spouting all the shit he does?
No. They never had a nuclear program. They wanted one, but the 1991 Gulf War pretty much killed off any of their abilities to even start one. The ensuing army of Weapons Inspectors (mostly from the U.S.) located and destroyed thousands of munitions and delivery systems... right down to artillery shells. That was the condition of the surrender.
If you believe Iraq was able to restart a full blown nuclear program, under tight economic sanctions... under the watchful eye of U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. Marine Recon teams on the ground in Iraq and U.S. Air Force surveillance crews and fighter pilots patrolling the airspace... all in the short period of 4 years... then, you also must believe that the guy they found curled up in a spider hole, eating Snickers bars for dinner was a genius and his military... that mounted anti-aircraft batteries to carts pulled along by donkeys... was smarter than all of our military and technology.
Hail, Hail!!!
Cosmo, I think 810 meant Iran, not Iraq.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Oh... okay.
Then, in that case... I agree with you. The message we seem to be sending out with our Iraq policy is, "If you don't have nuclear weapons... we will attack you".
So, get nuclear weapons so we won't attack.
Hail, Hail!!!
yep, sorry!
No, a democratic Iraq is a great thing regardless of who they vote into power. The biggest and hardest step is to establish democratic institutions in a country. This allows for the possibility that the population will vote in a more liberal, tolerant and cooperative government in the future. Without this system in place, that would be virtually impossible.
Furthermore, it's a lot better to read in the paper about a lame Iraqi parlament that is having trouble governing, than reading about an ego-maniac dictator who is oppressing, starving and killing dissidents and using his countries oil money to build hundreds of lavish palaces.
Iraq has been sold out like a dirty tshirt to western corporate interests (and control), and the Iraqi citizens are more pissed than ever.
great plan.
edit: Iraq (Saddam) was disarming and in compliance for months before the bombing started btw...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Just becuase this appears to be the Iranian strategy does not mean the US should step down and allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. We have established a policy towards Iran's nuclear proliferation that we cannot walk away from, and Iran needs to understand that.
Iran's bluster is founded in the belief that the US is bluffing. But this isn't a game of poker where the US can just fold its hand. We really cannot allow Iran to obtain a bomb, and our leaders know it. Whether they be liberal democrats or conservative republicans. If inteligence suggests that Iran obtaining a bomb is iminent, you can bet your ass there will be sufficient support in the congress and the general public to let the bombs fall to take out that capability. We will act unilaterally if we have to, and so will Israel.
I'm glad that the recent US report shows that Iran has abandonded their nuclear weapons program. I still don't trust them, but at least this delays any serious confrontation for awhile. I don't want to fight Iran, or bomb their country. Hopefully Amadinijad will get voted out soon and a more liberal government will emerge that can be negotiated with.
I understand what you are saying and agree that a democracy is far greater than an oppressive dictator. My concern is look what democracy has brought to the Middle East, Ahmedinajad and Hamas. How can we be sure that someone like Muqtada Al Sadar will not control the Iraqi parlament through influence. So many people in that region have been indoctrinated in this hate filled extremist form of Islam that they will probably vote for the most fundamental candidate out there. Now this is just an assumption but it is a possibility. The last thing I would want to see is all the lives of the soldier we lost, and will loose, plus the billions of dollars spent just so Iraqies can elect a government founded in extremism. We would have freed a nation just so they could elect our next enemy. I deeply hope that this will not be the case but the possibility exists and that is why the whole venture could blow up in our face. There where other ways to go about this which probably would have netted better results.
Yeah, I think that is a legitimate point you bring up. But in my view that is a risk that we have to take, and will have to take in the future. The wonderful thing about Democracy is that even though it may bring in the likes of Hamas and Amadenijad or even Hizbollah in Lebanon - that it can also take them out. That is unless these leaders try to pull a Hugo Chavez or Putin and try to manipulate the system to solidify their power.
If you think about it, I doubt there would have ever been a situation where Iraq turned toward democracy on its own. Not becuase the people wouldn't want it, but becuase over the past 3 decades the power of the people has just been sucked away. If Saddam was in power until he died, then some warlord would have taken over, and the country would have plunged into a civil war that would have lasted God knows how long.
I think we all agree here that you can't "force" democracy on people, and despite popular belief, the US did not do this in Iraq. Yes, we acted as an interim government and set up elections. But the Iraqi people did not have to participate in them if they did not want to. They could have just as easily rallied behind "Mohamad the warlord" and waged an all out civil war.
Anyways, sorry for rambling. But here is the reason I think we should bet on democracy working over the long term. It's becuase the human spirit will ultimately prevail. People naturally gravitate towards freedom and opportunity. With globalization at break-neck speed, people all around the world are getting a glimpse of societies that offer hope, choices and tolerance to their citizens. I think over time, people will naturally turn away from fanatical ideologies.
we hear daily about insurgents and terrorists but no one is reporting in the main stream media the true story of these wars ... privatization of the military; the forced privatization of all big companies in iraq to multi-national companies; the so called "treaty" for protection in exchange for iraq's resources ...
I believe that in time all people will gravitate towards a peacefull democratic society, my concern is what happens in the interm. I agree that change on it's own would not have happened in Iraq because of the decades long oppression, as you mentioned, but we could have supported change in other countries. Afghanistan is a country that we left half built, for a second time. Had we finished what we started and support the Karzai government there with more troops in order to secure the country we could have created one of the first true democractic societies in that region. Follow this with democratic reform in Pakistan, continued support of the Lebonese government, and maybe a few years down the road started flexing a little influence in the Arab Sheikdoms. It would have been a much slower process but little by little the oppressive regimes of the Middle East would have started collapsing like dominoes till all that was left was countries like Iraq and Iran who in time would of had no choice but to follow suit. I know that sounds like some utopian dream but I honestly feel that it would have been the better road to follow.